Jai Salasarbalaji Industries Pvt. Ltd vs Commr. Of Customs, Kolkata
- CitationAppeal No.KOL/CUS/CKP/585 to 588/09 dated-30/09/2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone a delay in filing an appeal beyond the thirty-day condonable period, over and above the statutory sixty-day limit for filing an appeal before him, and an appeal filed after that outer limit is liable to be dismissed as time-barred on that ground, the Supreme Court's decision in Singh Enterprises being binding on the Tribunal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.KOL/CUS/CKP/585 to 588/09 dated-30/09/2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata)
For approval and signature of:
DR.D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. I.P. LAL, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER
======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not ?
3. Whether Their Lordships wishto see the fair copy : of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Authorities ?
Jai SalasarBalaji Industries Pvt. Ltd.
APPELLANT(S) VERSUS Commr. of Customs, Kolkata
RESPONDENT(S)
APPEARANCE
Sri S. Mahapatra, Authorised Rep. FOR APPELLANT(S) Sri S.N. Mitra, A.C. (A.R.) FOR THE RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM: DR.D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. I.P. LAL, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER
DATE OF HEARING &DECISION : 4/02/2015
ORDER NO : FO/A/75036-75038/15 Per DR.D.M. MISRA
These three misc. applications are filed seeking condonation of delay of 131 days in filing the appeal before this Forum. The Ld. Representative submits against the Order-in-Appeal No. KOL/CUS/CKP/585 to 588/09 dated-30/09/2009, they filed one Appeal bearing no. C/533/09 in time i.e. on 27.10.2009, whereas, they were required to file three more Appeal paper books as the Order-in-Appeal disposed four Orders-in-Original. Hence, the delay in filing the technical appeals be condoned. Ld. A.R. has no objection in condoning the delay. Consequently, the delay condoned.
2. At the outset, the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue mentions that the Ld. Commr. (Appeal) in all these cases has dismissed their appeals on the ground that the appeals were filed before him beyond the condonable limit of 30 days in addition to the statutory limit of 60 days. He submits that in similar cases, this Tribunal has already dismissed their appeals following the ratio of the Honble Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises Vs. Commr. ofC.Ex., Jamshedpur reported in 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C).
3. The Ld. Representative Shri Mahapatra submits that against the said order of dismissal, they have referred the writ petition in Honble Calcutta High Court which is pending.
4. We find that in similar circumstances, this Tribunal has already dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant observing that the Ld. Commr. (Appeals) is not vested with power to condone the delay beyond 30 days in addition to the statutory limit of 60 days in view of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises (cited supra). In the result, we do not find merit in the Appeals filed, accordingly, the same are dismissed. Misc. applications & Stay Applications are disposed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
Sd/- 05/02/2015 Sd/- 05/02/2015 (I.P.LAL) (D.M.MISRA) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) k.b/-
Customs Appeal Nos. C/2-4/2011
3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free